Ex Parte Nguyen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

13589830 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/589,830 08/20/2012 David H. Nguyen 042933/420109 6851
10949 7590
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
YOON, SAE WON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID H. NGUYEN and KENTON M. LYONS
Appeal 2016-000493
Application 13/589,8301
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants disclose a multi-segment wearable accessory having a
number of virtual segments greater than the number of physical segments of
the accessory. Abstract.
1 Appellants identify Nokia Technologies Oy as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000493
Application 13/589,830
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least
one memory including computer program code, the at least one
memory and the computer program code configured to, with the
processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
associate a first virtual segment with a physical segment
of a multi-segment wearable accessory, wherein the multi­
segment wearable accessory comprises a plurality of links
connected to one another and the physical segment is one of a
plurality of physical segments supported by the links, and
wherein the first virtual segment is an arrangement of first
content configured to be presented on a display of the physical
segment;
associate a second virtual segment with the same
physical segment of the multi-segment wearable accessory that
is associated with the first virtual segment, wherein the second
virtual segment is an arrangement of second content configured
to be presented on the display of the physical segment, wherein
the display of the physical segment is configured to present
only one of the first or second virtual segments at a given time,
such that the first and second virtual segments are alternately
presentable on the display of the same physical segment;
cause only one of the virtual segments to be presented on
the display of the physical segment, such that the other virtual
segment is unpresented; and
in response to rotation of the multi-segment wearable
accessory, determine whether to replace the virtual segment
being presented with presentation of the other virtual segment,
such that the virtual segment that was previously presented on
the display of the physical segment becomes unpresented and
the other virtual segment that was unpresented becomes
presented to allow a user to view a total number of virtual
segments that is greater than a total number of physical
segments of the multi-segment wearable accessory.
2
Appeal 2016-000493
Application 13/589,830
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 8—11, and 14—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jee (US 2010/0029327 Al; Feb. 4,
2010) and Kim (US 2008/0318636 Al; Dec. 25, 2008). Final Act. 2-14.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jee, Kim, and Radely-Smith (US 2009/0251419 Al;
Oct. 8, 2009). Final Act. 1^U17.
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jee, Kim, and Tecchiolli (WO 2006/120211 Al;
Nov. 16,2006). Final Act. 17-18.
ANAFYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Jee’s rotation of an image to
keep the image’s up and down directions constant when the image’s display
is rotated teaches or suggests in response to rotation of the multi-segment
wearable accessory, determine whether to replace the virtual segment being
presented with presentation of the other virtual segment, such that the
virtual segment that was previously presented on the display of the physical
segment becomes unpresented and the other virtual segment that was
unpresented becomes presented. Final Act. 6—8 (citing Jee H 71, 72, 78,
109, and Figs. 4, 15A—B, and 20); see also Ans. 22—24 (further citing Jee
1108).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because in Jee the image is
merely rotated to keep the user’s perspective relatively the same when
viewing the image. App. Br. 13. Appellants contrast this with the claimed
invention, which determines whether to switch “between a displayed virtual
segment and an undisplaved virtual segment, such that the one displayed is
3
Appeal 2016-000493
Application 13/589,830
no longer displayed and the one that was not displayed is now displayed.”
App. Br. 13 (citing Spec. Figs. 10A-C). Appellants note that Jee’s Figures
15A and 15B both show “the same image (labeled 921 in both figures,. . .)
. . . the only difference being that the image has been rotated.” Reply Br. 3.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner’s findings
do not show that Jee’s rotation of an image to maintain its orientation
teaches or suggests determining whether to replace a virtual segment being
presented with a virtual segment that is unpresented. The Examiner does not
show that Kim cures the noted deficiency of Jee. Therefore, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner’s findings do not show that the combination of
Jee and Kim teaches or suggests the disputed recitation of claim 1 discussed
herein.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—5, 8—11, and 14—18, which contain similar
recitations. The Examiner’s findings also do not show that Radely-Smith or
Tecchiolli cure the noted deficiency of Jee and Kim. Therefore, we also do
not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 6, 7, 12,
13, 19, and 20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
4